Tag Archives: Damages

Dewberry Group: Structuring the Firm to Avoid Trademark Liability

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., a trademark damages case focused on how corporate separateness principles apply to disgorgement remedies under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The Fourth Circuit’s decision affirmed a $43 million disgorgement award against petitioner Dewberry Group (DG) for trademark infringement, an amount that included profits earned by DG’s “legally separate” corporate affiliates. Apparently, the affiliates were “single-purpose entities,” also privately owned by John Dewberry, whose sole function was to own commercial properties serviced by DG.

Pierce the Veil: In its literal sense, a veil is a delicate fabric that separates the visible from the concealed, a barrier that can be easily lifted or parted. However, the phrase has a history of extending beyond the material world, with a veil often serving as a boundary between the physical and spiritual realms in our universe. Many of us go through life, only occasionally glimpsing beyond this veil into the hidden spiritual dimensions that, according to story tellers, lie alongside our own. In the corporate world, the veil of corporate personhood serves to shield the owners from personal liability, creating a legal fiction that separates the actions of the company from those of its shareholders. This veil of protection is not impenetrable, however, and can be pierced by the courts in cases of serious misconduct or wrongdoing, exposing the owners to personal responsibility. Although the truth of owner identity may already be known, piercing the corporate veil removes the protection against responsibility  by attempting to holding accountable those who would misuse its protections. But, the legal doctrine of corporate separateness is quite strong and I might venture that it is easier to pierce the veil of our spiritual realms than the corporate analogue. (more…)

Pending En Banc Petitions at the Federal Circuit

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit recently decided the en banc design patent case of LKQ v. GM, but the court has not issued an en banc decision in a utility patent case since 2018.  There are currently four interesting petitions pending before the court.

Brumfield – Consistency and Proving International Damages: The Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims of the two asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Brumfield v. IBG LLC, No. 2022-1630 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2024).  Although the Federal Circuit had previously held that the claimed invention was “technological,” the court here concluded that it was not bound by that prior non-precedential decision. In the petition for rehearing, Brumfield argues the improperly disregarded the Federal Circuit’s prior finding that the patents claim technological improvements.  The contention here is that “the interest of consistency would be ‘ill served'” by allowing different panels to make contradictory findings about the same patent claims.” See, Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Indep. Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Id.

The panel also affirmed the district court’s exclusion of Brumfield’s damages expert’s testimony on obtaining foreign damages based on IBG’s domestic making of the accused product. The panel held that although the Supreme Court’s WesternGeco  decision permits awarding damages based on foreign conduct in cases involving domestic infringement, the expert had failed to establish the required causal relationship between the domestic infringement and the foreign conduct. In the rehearing petition, Brumfield argues the improperly decided this fact-intensive causation issue sua sponte, depriving Brumfield of the opportunity to present evidence on an issue that IBG never disputed below or on appeal. [Note: I was involved in litigating patents from this patent family when owned by the predecessor-in-interest. I am no longer involved the litigation. DC]

Edwards Lifesciences – Expanded 271(e)(1) Safe Harbor: In Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt., a split Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Meril’s importation of its transcatheter heart valve fell within the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) and thus, did not infringe Edwards’ patent. No. 2022-1877 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 25, 2024). The majority held that the safe harbor applied because Meril’s importation was “reasonably related to submitting information to the FDA,” even though there was evidence of other commercial uses. The dissent argued that the majority perpetuated the court’s failure to give meaning to the word “solely” in the statute, which cabins the safe harbor to uses solely related to the federal regulatory process. Section 271(e)(1) states that it “shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention … solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.”

Edwards has now petitioned for en banc rehearing, arguing that the panel decision vastly expands § 271(e)(1)’s safe harbor by reading the term “solely” out of the statute, in contravention of the provision’s plain text, history, and purpose. According to Edwards, any non-regulatory use is disqualifying under the correct reading of “solely.” Edwards contends the panel was bound by circuit precedent incorrectly holding that once a defendant identifies any use reasonably related to FDA approval, the safe harbor applies regardless of other non-regulatory uses. (citing AbTox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Edwards argues this precedent flouts the statutory text and history showing Congress struck a “careful balance” in § 271(e)(1) to allow infringement only for the singular purpose of seeking regulatory approval. By judicially rewriting this compromise to protect non-regulatory and commercial conduct, Edwards claims the Federal Circuit has distorted the market for patented products, undermined the patent bargain, and created a powerful statutory immunity ripe for abuse.

Salix Pharms – Improper Appellate Obviousness Fact Finding: The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s judgment that several claims of Salix’s patents covering methods of treating irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) using rifaximin were invalid as obvious. Salix Pharms., Ltd. v. Norwich Pharms. Inc., 2022-2153 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2024). Salix has petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel majority improperly found facts in the first instance rather than reviewing and analyzing the district court’s fact-finding as required by precedent. See Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (1986); Atl. Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 5 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

The petition contends that after correctly determining the district court erred in its obviousness analysis by misapplying the prior-art range precedent, the CAFC panel majority should have reversed or remanded for further fact-finding by the district court. Instead, Salix argues, the majority improperly made its own findings on key disputed factual issues never resolved by the district court, such as whether skilled artisans would have viewed small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) as a cause of IBS-D or as a separate disorder. The majority relied on prior art references and made factual findings that the district court never made to conclude there was a reasonable expectation of success in using the claimed rifaximin dosage to treat IBS-D.

Additionally, Salix asserts the panel majority applied the wrong standard in determining that the district court’s erroneous reliance on a non-prior art reference (the “RFIB 2001 Press Release”) was harmless error. Rather than considering whether that reference induced the district court to make findings it otherwise would not have made, the majority simply concluded other evidence “established” the relevant fact. But as Judge Cunningham noted in dissent in the original panel decision, the district court heavily relied on the press release to discount evidence of skepticism in the art. The press release factored significantly into the court’s analysis.

Luv N’ Care – Scope of Unclean Hands Defense: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the unclean hands doctrine to bar Eazy-PZ’s patent and trade dress claims against Luv N’ Care due to Eazy-PZ’s litigation misconduct. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Laurain, 2022-1905 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2024). In its petition for rehearing, Eazy-PZ argues that the panel majority departed from Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent requiring that unclean hands be based on misconduct having an “immediate and necessary relation to the equity that he seeks.” Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240 (1933); see also Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

The district court concluded that the patentee Eazy-PZ had engaged in litigation misconduct—all of which was associated with the asserted utility patent. However, the resulting unclean hands penalty was to dismiss the entire case, including the design patent and trade dress claims. The petition argues this was an improper extension without analyzing how the alleged misconduct related to or provided Eazy-PZ an unfair advantage regarding those claims. The petition asserts that withholding information relevant to utility claim construction could not have advantaged the design and trade dress claims. Eazy-PZ argues this expansive application of unclean hands, untethered to the specific relief sought, vitiates the Supreme Court’s “immediate and necessary” relation requirement.

Regarding the ‘903 utility patent itself, Eazy-PZ argues the panel affirmed based on factual findings the district court never made about how any false or evasive testimony impacted Luv N’ Care, violating the rule that appellate courts cannot make factual findings in the first instance.

Discussing Stern’s “Myth of Nonrivalry” for Patent Law

Patent, , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

Two people cannot wear the same sock (at least at the same time) but they can think the same thought, sing the same song, or undergo the same medical procedure. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, part of the ‘peculiar character’ of an idea is that ‘no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.’

This quote from Professor James Stern’s new article introduces the conventional view that ideas and information are nonrivalrous, in contrast to the rivalrous nature  of tangible goods.  As an idea based creation, intellectual property’s nonrivalrous nature has always placed it on airy ground as a statutory creation rather than a natural law.  The rivalrous nature of real and personal property has justified property regimes, but for IP we have always needed additional justification and additional limits because propertization creates artificial scarcity.  But Stern’s new article bucks the conventional wisdom and instead argues that the nonrivalry of IP is a myth. James Y. Stern, Intellectual Property and the Myth of Nonrivalry, 99 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1163 (2024).  Although many economists assume that more information is better, Stern makes clear that is not always true. He writes “it seems a safe bet that there are substantial numbers of people who would prefer the human race had never come up with such novelties as land mines, cigarettes, cargo shorts, Jet Skis, genetically modified foods, anabolic steroids, robocallers, date-rape drugs, subwoofers, Ponzi schemes, and crystal meth, to name just a few.”

Stern’s article challenges the widely held belief that information goods are inherently nonrivalrous, and that this characteristic distinguishes them from tangible property. He argues that the concept of rivalry, properly understood, encompasses not just conflicts between two active uses of a resource, but also conflicts where one person wants to use a resource and another simply wants that person to refrain from doing so. This broader conception of rivalry in terms of wants and desires, Stern contends, is relevant to many situations involving intellectual property.  One Stern’s key insights is that preferences to control and restrict access to ideas and information are ubiquitous, extending well beyond the domain of intellectual property law. He points to examples such as privacy laws, testimonial privileges, classified information and state secrets laws, and the Federal Witness Protection Program as evidence that conflicts over controlling access to information are common and demonstrate the potential for rivalrousness when it comes to ideas and information.  This insight serves to challenge the notion that the nonrivalrous nature of information goods necessarily means that granting exclusive rights over them is unjustified or socially harmful.

The article also examines how the characterization of intellectual property rights as “monopolies” has shaped legal doctrine, such as the Supreme Court’s reliance on the “public rights doctrine” to uphold adjudication of patent validity in administrative proceedings. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). Stern suggests that this rhetoric traces partly to the view that information goods differ fundamentally from physical property due to their supposed nonrivalry.

Although the article is not patent focused, Stern’s arguments have significant implications for patent law by undermining a key justification for limiting the scope and strength of patent protection. If rivalrousness is possible for patented inventions, then the case for treating patents as a form of property is stronger.  An example application here could be eBay and the role of damages and injunctions in patent cases.  Similarly, with respect to patent term, Stern’s article raises questions about the appropriate duration of patent rights. If the justification for time-limited patent rights rests partly on the assumption that inventions are nonrivalrous and therefore do not require permanent exclusivity, then recognizing the potential for rivalrousness in the use of inventions may suggest a need to reconsider the optimal term length. At the same time, concerns about dynamic efficiency and the importance of promoting follow-on innovation may still counsel in favor of limiting the duration of patent rights, even if some degree of rivalrousness is present.  Consider also double patenting, that is designed to ensure that the public should have access to the invention upon expiration of the patent. See In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Although I have not fully bought into his ideas, professor Stern has done a great job challenging us to rethink core aspects of intellectual property law.  Many courts, especially members of the Supreme Court, have long seen intellectual property as inherently suspect without any inherent value other than the incentive to innovate.  Stern’s article grapples with this argument that and highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the interests at stake.

Supreme Court Affirms Availability of Back-Damages Under Copyright Discovery Rule

Patent, , , ,

By Dennis Crouch and Timothy Knight

On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, No. 22-1078, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), resolving a circuit split over the availability of back-damages in copyright infringement cases. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kagan, the Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, permitting recovery of damages for acts that occurred more than three years before the filing of the lawsuit under the “discovery accrual rule.”

For those of you who have not been following the case, the Plaintiff Sherman Nealy, a music producer, helped create musical works in the 1980s with his collaborator, Tony Butler.  Nealy was incarcerated from 1989 to 2008 and again from 2012 to 2015 (more…)

Without Undue Experimentation vs Without Any Experiments

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I was rereading the Supreme Court’s recent enablement decision of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) and was struck by the Supreme Court’s statement that its 19th Century decision of Wood v. Underhill, 46 U.S. 1 (1847) “establish[ed] that a specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention.”  This statement from Amgen is surprising because Chief Justice Taney’s decision in Wood includes a seemingly contrary statement that bars any experimentation (more…)

Guest post by Prof. Holbrook: Extraterritoriality and Patent Damages Under § 271(a)

Patent, , , , ,

Guest post by Tim Holbrook. Robert B. Yegge Endowed Distinguished Professor of Law and Provost’s Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

United States patents are generally territorial.  Their exclusive rights only operate within the United States and its territories.  Or so one may think reading the Patent Act.  Moreover, in a global marketplace, the territorial nature of intellectual property rights can create challenges. It would be simpler for a patent holder to just use the U.S. patent to cover foreign activity. This is especially true if a domestic act of infringement has spillover effects into other countries.

So, when – if ever – can a patent owner receive damages for foreign activity that may flow from acts of domestic infringement?

The Supreme Court answered that question   (more…)

Attorney Fees on Undecided Inequitable Conduct Issues

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

United Cannabis Corp (UCANN) vs. Pure Hemp Collective, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. 2023)

The UCANN vs. Pure Hemp patent case has come to a close with the Federal Circuit affirming the district court’s decision to deny attorney fees to Pure Hemp. The original infringement lawsuit was filed in 2018, with UCANN suing Pure Hemp for infringing US Patent No. 9,730,911, covering various high concentration cannabis and CBD extract formulations. During the litigation, UCANN filed for bankruptcy, causing the case to be stayed, and eventually, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the infringement claims with prejudice. However, the stipulated dismissal did not include any discussion of attorney fees — leading to the current appeal.

Following the dismissal, Pure Hemp moved for attorney fees and sanctions, arguing that UCANN’s counsel committed inequitable conduct during patent prosecution and that UCANN’s litigation counsel had a conflict of interest. The district court sided with UCANN and denied attorney fees, stating (1) that Pure Hemp was not the prevailing party and (2) that Pure Hemp did not prove that the case was exceptional. The Federal Circuit has now affirmed the decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case unexceptional. Although district court the district court erred in not finding Pure Hemp to be the prevailing party, the error was harmless.

(more…)

Establishing Guidelines for Patent Damages: The Garretson v. Clark Case of 1884

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Calculating damages for patent infringement can be a complex task, particularly when the invention is an improvement to an existing machine or product.  The Supreme Court’s 1884 decision in Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, helped establish a rule requiring apportionment in cases involving improvement patents.

The plaintiff, Garretson held two patents covering improved mop heads and sued the defendants for infringement.  The lower court sided with the patentee — finding the claims valid and infringed and also issued an injunction to halt ongoing infringement.  However, the court balked at awarding the requested back-damages for past infringement.

The patentee had offered a simple lost-profit damage calculation.  In particular the court was presented with evidence showing how much profit the patentee made from the sale of each mop, and the patentee asked the court to force the defendant to pay that amount for each of infringing mop.  The circuit court judge Samuel Blatchford appointed NY patent attorney George J. Sicard to conduct an accounting.  Sicard came back with a recommendation of $0 in damages, and Blatchford agreed.

The issue here is that the patent covered an improvement to a mop, but the patentee was seeking damages for the entire profits associated with the mop — not just the value of the improvement.  In his opinion, Blatchford wrote:

The patentee must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative; or he must show, by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence, that the profits and damages are to be calculated on the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the whole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.

Garretson v. Clark, 10 F. Cas. 40, 44 (C.C.N.D.N.Y. 1878).  The plaintiff has the burden of proving damages, but its theory of damages utterly failed. And, no other damages evidence was presented. The effective result was no damages.

At the time of the decision, Blatchfort was a circuit court judge. In 1882, he was nominated by President Chester Arthur to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Because of the long backlog at the time, Blatchfort reached the court before the case was heard (even though it was directly appealed).  The Supreme Court finally got around to hearing the appeal in 1886 and affirmed in an opinion by Justice Field.

The high court quoted Blatfort’s decision as I have done above and  also remarked that for improvement patents, “the patentee must show in what particulars his improvement has added to the usefulness of the machine or contrivance. He must separate its results distinctly from those of the other parts, so that the benefits derived from it may be distinctly seen and appreciated.” Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884).

The decision helped establish a clear rule for patentees to follow when claiming damages for improvements in existing machines or contrivances. It emphasized the presentation reliable and tangible evidence to apportion profits and damages between patented and unpatented features or evidence to demonstrate that the entire value of the product is attributable to the patented feature.

= = =

An interesting aside from this case is that the defendant – Charles B. Clark – is also co-inventor of one of the two asserted patents.  Clark had transferred his rights to a third party, and Garretson bought them up.  The case involves sales of 100,000+ mops.

= = =

Note here that this case was brought in equity rather than at law and so that raises a major difference between current cases, and we had different statutory language under the 1870 Act.  A lot of our 1800s patent cases have quirks that leave them not susceptible to direct application to today’s cases.  Still, I be but they still provide some amount of foundational guidance and gives a chance to observe the evolution of the legal principles we know today.

Amgen Scores Partial Victory in Efforts to Maintain OTEZLA Exclusivity

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By Chris Holman

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 2023 WL 2994166, — 4th —   (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2023)

In 2019, Amgen acquired worldwide rights to apremilast (OTEZLA) from Celgene $13.4 billion in cash, in connection with Celgene’s merger with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Apremilast was the only oral, non-biologic treatment for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and in 2020 apremilast generated $2.2 billion for Amgen.

At the time Amgen’s acquired apremilast, Celgene was involved in Hatch-Waxman litigation with numerous generic challengers, including Sandoz. Celgene had asserted three of its 11 Orange Book-listed patents against Sandoz, and in 2020 Amgen was substituted as plaintiff.

The primary patent asserted is U. S. Patent 7,427,638, which is directed to pharmaceutical compositions comprising stereochemically pure apremilast. The original expiration date of this patent was in 2024, but the patent received a patent term extension of more than three years, resulting in an effective patent expiration date of February 16, 2028, according to the Orange Book.

Celgene also asserted U. S. Patent 7,893,101, which is directed to enantiomerically pure solid forms (e.g., crystalline polymorphic forms) of apremilast. This patent is due to expire December 9, 2023.

The third patent asserted by Celgene was U. S. Patent 10,092,541, directed to methods for treating a patient using dose titration of apremilast. According to the Orange Book, this patent was set to expire on May 29, 2034.

The district court found the claims of the ‘638 and ‘101 patents to be infringed and not invalid, and enjoined generic apremilast until the expiration of the ‘638 patent in February 2028. On appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed, an outcome that Amgen characterizes as a win.

On the other hand, the district court found the asserted claims of the ‘541 patent to be invalid for obviousness, which reportedly “pleased” Sandoz because the ruling “enables Sandoz to launch [its] generic apremilast product in the U. S. in 2028, six years prior to the expiry date of the latest-expiring Amgen patent asserted in litigation.”  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to the obviousness of the ‘541 patent.

Here is a brief overview of the court’s decision regarding the asserted obviousness of these patents.

The ‘638 patent claims apremilast, which is the stereochemically pure (+) enantiomer of a compound falls that within a class of molecules referred to as phosphodiesterase-4 (“PDE4”) inhibitors.  Sandoz’s obviousness argument was based primarily upon a prior art Celgene patent, U. S. Patent 6,020,058, which includes an Example 12 that describes a racemic mixture containing apremilast, but that does not disclose the purified (+) enantiomer. The Federal Circuit found that the district court had not erred in holding that Sandoz had not proven that a skilled artisan would have had sufficient motivation to purify the (+) enantiomer from the racemic mixture disclosed in Example 12, nor that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in resolving that mixture into its enantiomeric components, given the unpredictable nature of resolving racemic mixtures.

The Federal Circuit further found that the district court had not erred in its finding of strong objective indicia of nonobviousness, particularly given the unexpected potency of apremilast relative to the apremilast-containing racemic mixture disclosed in Example 12. The court credited testimony from a Celgene researcher listed as an inventor on the ‘638 patent, who noted a 20-fold difference in potency between apremilast alone and the racemic mixture, and stated that the inventors “didn’t expect a 20-fold difference in potency… Normally, if a racemate is a 50/50 mixture of two enantiomers, you might expect a two-fold difference in potency, all things being equal.” The district court also did not err in determining that apremilast satisfied a long felt need for an improved psoriasis treatment suitable for oral administration, that others in the field had tried and failed to develop other PDE4 inhibitors as drugs, and that there had been a degree of skepticism about the safety of apremilast because of its structural similarity to thalidomide, a drug notorious for its teratogenic effects in fetuses leading to severe and debilitating birth defects.

The issue with respect to the ‘101 patent was whether it could rely upon the filing date of a provisional application to which it claims priority. The ‘101 patent claims crystalline Form B of apremilast, and the provisional application includes an Example 2 which discloses a synthetic procedure for preparing apremilast. Although Example 2 does not explicitly disclose that the resulting apremilast has the Form B crystalline structure, Amgen provided the court with the results of over a dozen experiments following the procedure of Example 2, all of which resulted in crystalline Form B of apremilast, while Sandoz had provided no evidence to establish that Example 2 was capable of producing a crystalline Form other than Form B. Although the district court had based its holding on its conclusion that the provisional application inherently disclose crystalline Form B of apremilast, the Federal Circuit found that it did not need to reach the issue of inherent disclosure because the evidence established that Example 2 actually disclosed crystalline Form B of apremilast, albeit without specifically disclosing the crystal structure of the resulting product.

The ‘541 patent claimed a method of treating a patient with apremilast that basically involves starting with a relatively low dose and, over a course of days, gradually increasing the dosage to arrive at a full dosage which is significantly higher than the initial dosage, i.e., a dose-titration schedule. The court found this to be an obvious method, in view of prior art disclosing a similar dosage schedule. The Federal Circuit observed that, as a general matter, varying doses in response to the occurrence of side effects is well-known and obvious to the skilled artisan.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Bits and Bytes, Patent, , , , , , , ,

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

$469 Million: There and Gone

Patent, , , ,

ClearPlay v. Dish Network (D.Utah 2023)

Earlier in March 2023, a Utah jury sided with the patentee ClearPlay – find that Dish Network infringed two “clean movie” patents used to to skip the naughty bits of a video program. US7577970 (Claims 28 and 33); and US6898799 (Claim 12).  The jury went on to award a “reasonable royalty” of $469 million.

Hold that pause button.  This week, Judge Nutter rejected the jury verdict and instead granted the defendant’s motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.  Nutter concluded that the patentee had not shown either literal infringement or infringement by equivalents.  The court ordered DISH to prepare a draft order for his signature that adopts the rational from its briefing.

The draft order will contain support, citations, and consistent rationale from its briefing; transcript references from DISHs appendix (which should be used extensively in the draft order); and references to contrary positions taken by ClearPlay to illustrate the conflicts that this ruling resolves.

Minute Entry of March 21.   The case has been pending since 2014.

Federal Circuit: eBay creates a four-element test (not “four-factors”)

Patent,

Nichia Corp v. Everlight Americas (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Nichia is the world’s largest supplier of LEDs.   The defendant here also sells LEDs and was accused of infringing three Nichia patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, and 7,462,870.

In a bench trial, the district court judge sided with the patentee – finding that it had proven infringement and the defendant had not proven the asserted claims invalid.  However, the district court refused to issue a permanent injunction – finding that the patentee had failed to show that it suffered irreparable harm due to the infringement or that the remedies available “at law” were inadequate.   On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed — holding that the proof of irreparable harm is a necessary threshold test for permanent injunctive relief, regardless of whether the patentee is left with an adequate remedy at law.  The decision is important (and quite problematic) because it allows for the possibility of no remedy for the patentee.

The baseline comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. Mercexchange that established a four-factor test for determining whether to grant permanant injunctive relief.  The patentee must prove: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Prior to this decision, my conception of the four-factors were that the balance of the four must weigh in favor of injunctive relief and that the patentee must prove either (1) irreparable harm or (2) lack of remedy at law.  The decision here rejects both of my prior-conceptions.  Taking them in reverse order, the court holds that irreparable harm must be proven before relief can be granted.  In addition, the court wrote (likely dicta) that each factor must be individually proven for injunctive relief to issue.

The movant must prove that it meets all four equitable factors. i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And it must do so on the merits of its particular case. eBay. . . . Because Nichia failed to establish one of the four equitable factors, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nichia’s request for an injunction.

The court here appears to shift this from a four-factor test to a four-element test.  The result of this decision is that it becomes incrementally even more difficult for a patentee to obtain injunctive relief even after winning its infringement lawsuit and defending against validity challenges.   I also expect that any analysis of the historical equitable factors (the approach suggested by eBay) will recognize that this holding is incorrect.

Licensee Marking Requirement

Patent, , ,

PezPatentRembrandt Wireless v. Samsung (Fed. Cir. 2017)

A jury found for Rembrandt and awarded $15.7 million in damages. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed on infringement and validity – but rejected the lower court’s finding that the patent had been properly marked.

Back-damages for patent infringement is a bit interesting. The marking statute creates a constructive notice regime for sales of ‘patented articles’ and then cuts-off damages for failure to mark those articles: 

In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.

35 U.S.C. § 287.  The marking requirement does not apply only to patentees, but also to “any persons” making or selling the invention “for or under” the patentee.  The courts have interpreted this requirement then as applying to a patent licensee — “thereby limiting the patentee’s damage recovery when the patented article is not marked” by the licensee.  Quoting Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 185 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Here, Rembrandt had previously licensed the patent at-issue (U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580) to Zhone Tech who sold unmarked products allegedly embodying claim 40 of the patent.  (Zhone was not required to mark under the license agreement).

As soon as Samsung sought to limit its potential damages to the date of actual-notice, Rembrandt dropped its allegations that Samsung infringed claim 40 and also filed a statutory disclaimer with the USPTO disclaiming claim 40.  Samsung was later found to infringe other remaining claims of the patent – and the district court ruled that the disclaimer was sufficient to cure the marking problem.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagrees:

Rembrandt’s position, adopted by the district court, effectively provides an end-run around the marking statute and is irreconcilable with the statute’s purpose. Allowing Rembrandt to use disclaimer to avoid the consequence of its failure to mark undermines the marking statute’s public notice function. . . .

The marking statute protects the public’s ability to exploit an unmarked product’s features without liability for damages until a patentee provides either constructive notice through marking or actual notice.

 

Disclaiming a patent claim does not later erase the fact that the claim was previously in effect and had not been properly marked.

The Court suggested a potential question of whether the focus should be claim-by-claim rather than patent-by-patent, but declined to rule on that issue because it had not been properly raised on appeal.   On remand, the district court will be asked to look into that question and – if needed – recalculated the damage award.

= = = = =

The case here offers an important distinction – in my mind – between a patent license and a covenant-not-to-sue. Any reasonable license that covers an ‘article’ would include the marking requirement.   In my mind (although perhaps not the court’s) a mere covenant-not-to-sue should not fall under the marking requirement.

= = = = =

Typical Marking License Language: Licensee mark all Licensed Products made or sold in the United States with an appropriate patent marking. All Licensed Products shipped to or sold in other countries must be marked in such a manner as to provide notice to potential infringers pursuant to the patent laws and practice of the country of manufacture or sale.  Licensor shall have the right to inspect Licensee’s Licensed Products to determine if Licensee is marking in accordance with this paragraph.

 

Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Patent, , ,

Upcoming Events

Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association Spring Seminar

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

Unwired Planet v. Huawei: An English Perspective on FRAND Royalties

Patent, , , , , , ,

FRONDGuest Post by Professor Jorge L. Contreras

In the latest decision by the UK High Court of Justice (Patents) in Unwired Planet v. Huawei ([2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 5 Apr. 2017], Mister Justice Colin Birss has issued a detailed and illuminating opinion regarding the assessment of royalties on standards-essential patents (SEPs) that are subject to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments.  Among the important and potentially controversial rulings in the case are:

  1. Single Royalty: there is but a single FRAND royalty rate applicable to any given set of SEPs and circumstances,
  2. Significance of Overstep: neither a breach of contract nor a competition claim for abuse of dominance will succeed unless a SEP holder’s offer is significantly above the true FRAND rate,
  3. Global License: FRAND licenses for global market players are necessarily global licenses and should not be limited to a single jurisdiction, and
  4. Soft-Edge: the “non-discrimination” (ND) prong of the FRAND commitment does not imply a “hard-edged” test in which a licensee may challenge the FRAND license that it has been granted on the basis that another similarly situated licensee has been granted a lower rate, so long as the difference does not distort competition between the two licensees.

Background

This case began in 2014 when Unwired Planet, a U.S.-based patent assertion entity, sued Google, Samsung and Huawei for infringement under six UK patents (corresponding actions were filed in Germany).  Unwired Planet claimed that five of the asserted patents, which it acquired from Ericsson in 2013 as part of a portfolio comprising approximately 2000 patents, were essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless telecommunications standards developed under the auspices of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).  Because Ericsson participated in development of the standards at ETSI, any patents shown to be SEPs would necessarily be encumbered by Ericsson’s FRAND commitment to ETSI.

The UK proceedings involved numerous stages, including five scheduled “technical trials” which would determine whether each of the asserted patents was valid, infringed and essential to the ETSI standards.  During these proceedings Google and Samsung settled with Unwired Planet and Ericsson (which receives a portion of the licensing and settlement revenue earned by Unwired Planet from the patents), leaving Huawei as the sole UK defendant.  By April 2016 three of the technical trials had been completed, resulting in findings that two of the asserted patents were invalid and that two were both valid and essential to the standards.  These findings are currently under appeal. The parties then agreed to suspend further technical trials.  In October 2016 a “non-technical” trial began regarding issues of competition law, FRAND, injunction and damages.  Hearings were concluded in December 2016, and the court’s opinion and judgment were issued on April 5, 2017.

A. The High Court’s Decision – Overview

The principal questions before the court were (1) the level of the FRAND royalty for Unwired Planet’s SEPs, (2) whether Unwired Planet abused a dominant position in violation of Section 102 of the Treaty for the Formation of the European Union (TFEU) by failing to adhere to the procedural requirements for FRAND negotiations outlined by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE (2014), and (3) whether an injunction should issue in the case.  In the below discussion, Paragraph numbers (¶) correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the High Court’s April 2017 opinion.

B. FRAND Commitments – General Observations

Justice Birss begins his opinion with some general observations and background about the standard-setting process and FRAND commitments.  A few notable points emerge from this discussion. (more…)

Modified Opinion: Federal Circuit Won’t Enjoin Non-Party

Patent, ,

Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA (“Cooler Master”) (Fed. Cir. 2017)

The Federal Circuit has updated its original decision in Asetek, with Judge Prost deleting her dissent and her points being incorporated into the majority opinion.  The change here relates to the injunction pending remand.

Asetek sued CMI/Cooler-Master for infringing its computer fan patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764 (“cooling systems”).  A jury sided with Asetek and the patentee was awarded damages as well as an injunction against specific Cooler Master products.  The problem – is that the injunction was awarded against CMI USA as well as “Cooler Master Co., Ltd.”, a Taiwanese company who was no longer a party to the lawsuit.   On appeal, the Federal Circuit substantially affirmed but remanded on the injunction since it applied to a non-party and went beyond that non-party’s ‘abetting a new violation’ by the adjudged infringer.

The oddity of the original Judge Taranto opinion was that it did not actually vacate the injunction but kept it in-force until modified by the lower court. “We do not think it appropriate to vacate the injunction at present.”  Writing in dissent, Chief Judge Prost argued that “The correct course of action would be to vacate the portions of the injunction that improperly reach Cooler Master.”

Following the original opinion, CMI filed for rehearing and that has been partially granted today with a new opinion from the original panel.  The new opinion here adopts Chief Judge Prost’s position and her partial dissent is deleted as is the panel’s non-vacatur.  The new opinion now partially vacates the injunction so that it no longer applies to the non-party (except for aiding and abetting).  The new paragraph:

Two final, related points. First, the need for further proceedings to determine the proper reach of the injunction in this case leads us to vacate the injunction, effective upon issuance of our mandate, insofar as the injunction reaches conduct by Cooler Master that does not abet new violations by CMI. The district court is to conduct those proceedings in as reasonably prompt a fashion as possible. Our partial vacatur of the injunction does not foreclose Asetek from pursuing reinstatement of the vacated portion of the injunction should there be unjustifiable delay by Cooler Master in completing the proceedings, or from pursuing any other remedies against Cooler Master, if otherwise authorized by law.

The en banc court simultaneously released its denial of rehearing after noting that the panel had revised its opinion.  CMI’s en banc petition began as follows:

The Panel Majority’s precedential opinion has promulgated a new rule that a pre-liability permanent injunction against a non-party is permissible pending a determination of liability under the “legally identified with” theory. There are three issues with this opinion. First, it violates the rule that everyone has a right to his day in court. Second, it violates the rule that actual success on the merits must precede entry of a permanent injunction. Third, its remand of further proceedings to determine the “legal identity” issue is an impermissible advisory opinion.

I believe that the revised decision here is legally correct, but it always gives me pause to watch companies and owners divide-up the structure of their firms without substantially dividing management and control — and then use that division to partially avoid legal liability.  The end result is that the potential corporate complexity can substantially raise the costs of enforcement without providing any social benefit.  In this case, Asetek writes that “the precise historical and corporate relationship between CMI and Cooler Master is murky; not even their counsel is sure of it.”  The parties always had the same attorneys, and CMI distributes all of Cooler Master’s products in the US, and assists with US marketing.

 

 

Doctrine of Laches Cannot Bar Legal Damages Claims in Patent Cases

Patent

SCA Hygiene Prods. V. First Quality Baby Prods. (Supreme Court. 2017)

In a 7-1 decision delivered by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court has expanded its recent copyright decision in Petrella to now hold that laches cannot be invoked as a defense in patent cases to prevent legal damages within the statutory 6-year limitations period of 35 U.S.C. § 286.

The basic idea is that Laches is a judge-made remedy created by the court of equity in the absence of any statute of limitations.  However, when Congress acts to create a statute of limitations – as it did with §286 – the judge-made law no longer has a role to play.

Again playing on a decade-long-theme of no-patent-exceptionalism, the court wrote:

Indeed, it would be exceedingly unusual, if not unprecedented, if Congress chose to include in the Patent Act both a statute of limitations for damages and a laches provision applicable to a damages claim. Neither the Federal Circuit, nor First Quality, nor any of First Quality’s amici has identified a single federal statute that provides such dual protection against untimely claims.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-927_6j37.pdf

Justice Breyer dissented – arguing that “for more than a century courts with virtual unanimity have applied laches in patent damages cases” in order to fill an important gap in the statutory regime.

 

 

= = = = =

Supreme Court to Review (and likely Reject) Laches as a Defense in Patent Infringement Cases

SCA Hygiene Laches Oral Arguments: How Do we Interpret Congressional Silence?

Court Maintains Laches Defense for Back Damages in Patent Cases

 

 

Mentor Graphics v. Synopsys: Covering All the Bases

Patent, , ,

Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA (Synopsys) (Fed. Cir. 2017) [synopsysmentor]

The appeal here is somewhat complicated – as reflected by the Federal Circuit’s 42-page opinion.  The complications begin with the founding of EVE, and emulation software company founded by folks who invented emulation software at Mentor. Synopsys then acquired EVE.   EVE had previously licensed some of Mentor’s patents, but Mentor claims the license was terminated by the Synopsys acquisition.

Ending Assignor Estoppel: The jury found that Synopsys infringed Mentor’s U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376 and awarded $36 million in lost profits damages.  The district court had refused to allow Synopsys to challenge the patent’s validity based upon the doctrine of assignor estoppel.  The judge-made doctrine prohibits a patent’s seller/assignor (such as an inventor who assigned rights to his employer) from later challenging the validity of a patent in patent infringement litigation.   Here, Synopsys agreed that the doctrine applied since the inventors of the ‘376 patent had founded and continued to operate EVE that was the source of the infringement.   However, the adjudged infringer boldly asked the Federal Circuit to eliminate the doctrine (as the PTAB has done) since Supreme Court “demolished the doctrinal underpinnings of assignor estoppel in the decision that abolished the comparable licensee estoppel in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969).” On appeal, the Federal Circuit panel disagreed – as it must – following its own precedent such as Diamond Sci. Co. v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220, 1222–26 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and MAG Aerospace Indus., Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 816 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  The setup here is proper for en banc or Supreme Court petition.  On Point is Mark A. Lemley, Rethinking Assignor Estoppel, 54 Hous. L. Rev. 513 (2016) (arguing that the doctrine “interferes with both the invalidation of bad patents and the goal of employee mobility”).

Indefinite: The district court held on summary judgment that Synopsis’ cross-asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,132,109 is indefinite. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed.  The asserted claims require a “circuit analysis visually near the
HDL source specification that generated the circuit.”  And, the district court found that the undefined term-of-degree “near” rendered the claim indefinite.

Patent law requires that the claims “inform, with reasonable certainty, those
skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014).  Terms of degree are certainly permissible, but the patent document must include “some standard” used to measure the term of degree.

Here, the court walked through terms of degree that have been accepted post Nautilus: “spaced relationship”,  “visually negligible”, and “look and feel” based upon the intrinsic evidence or established meaning in the art.

Here, the specification indicates that the nearness of the circuit analysis display is to allow “a designer to make more effective use of logic synthesis and reduce the complexity of the circuit debugging process.”  In addition, the specification provides several diagrams showing the analysis next to the appropriate line of code (below). These descriptions provided enough of a standard for the court to find a reasonable certainty as to the scope of the term and the claim as a whole. “[W]e hold a skilled artisan would understand “near” requires the HDL code and its corresponding circuit analysis to be displayed in a manner that physically associates the two.”  On remand, Synopsys will get a shot at proving infringement of this patent.

synopsyschart

Eligibility: A separate Synopsys patent was found ineligible. U.S. Patent No. 7,069,526 (asserted claims 19, 24, 28, 30, and 33). The claims are directed to “A machine-readable medium containing instructions …”  The problem is that the patent expressly defines “machine-readable medium” to include “carrier waves” and therefore is invalid under In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  In Nuijten, the court held that transitory signals are not eligible for patenting because they do not fit any of the statutory classes of “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” The here court writes: “Because the challenged ’526 claims are expressly defined by the specification to cover carrier waves, they are similar to the ineligible Nuijten claims.”

Claim Preclusion: Finally, the Mentor has successfully appealed the district court claim preclusion holding as to Mentor’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,009,531 and 5,649,176.  Back in 2006, Mentor had sued EVE for infringing the patents.  That litigation settled with Eve’s license and a dismissal with prejudice.

Here, the Federal Circuit held that claim preclusion cannot apply because the current litigation is based upon acts that occurred subsequent to the prior settlement.

Mentor’s infringement allegations are based on alleged acts of infringement that occurred after the Mentor/EVE license terminated and were not part of the previous lawsuit. Claim preclusion does not bar these allegations because Mentor could not have previously brought them.

What is a bit unclear here is how the license plays in.  The court noted that the current infringement claims are “based on post-license [termination] conduct, so the alleged infringement did not exist during the previous action.”  It is unclear how the court would deal with pre-termination conduct.

Note: The case also includes an important holdings on lost profits damages, willfulness, and written description that we’ll save for a later post.

The Imminent Outpouring from the Eastern District of Texas

Articles and Publications, Journal, Patent, , , , , , ,

The following guest post by Professor Paul Janicke ties-in with his new article published at: Paul M. Janicke, The Imminent Outpouring from the Eastern District of Texas, 2017 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. – DC

by Paul M. Janicke┼

When the Supreme Court reverses the Federal Circuit’s venue ruling in the TC Heartland case, a reversal widely expected, it will return patent venue to the time prior to 1988, when the residence of a corporation for patent venue purpose was limited to (i) a district within the state of incorporation, or (ii) a district where the corporation has a regular and established place of business and has allegedly committed an act of infringement. Presently pending in the Eastern District of Texas are 1,000+ patent cases. The number may go up or down a little before the Court’s ruling, but it’s not likely to change much in that short time.[1] My inquiry is: What will happen to those cases?  My analysis on this subject can be found at Paul M. Janicke, The Imminent Outpouring from the Eastern District of Texas, 2017 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1..

The new venue statute upon which the Court will base its ruling became effective in January 2012. That means it applies to nearly all the cases now on the Eastern District’s docket, and the venue for hundreds of those cases was likely improper. Those defendants who are not Texas corporations and who lacked any regular and established place of business in Eastern Texas when suit was filed will be entitled to dismissal or transfer to a district that would have been proper under the new law, unless they have waived the improper venue defense. Let’s take a look at the groups of possibly affected defendants.

Local Merchants

Some defendants are local merchants in the Eastern District, accused of infringement only because they sell products made by others. Venue as to these merchants will be proper under either the old or new venue rules, so they are entitled to neither dismissal nor transfer. If the case against a merchant’s vendor is transferred, the merchant’s best bet is to seek a stay of the case against it. While stays are not particularly favored in the Eastern District, a situation like the present one has not likely been encountered before. It may work.

Active Players As Defendants

These are typically manufacturers of high-tech products or vendors of software. Computer-related technology is said to be the subject of over 90% of patent case filings in the district. Most of them lack any regular place of business in Eastern Texas, although we have found some 70 companies who employ 100 or more persons in the district and are defendants in pending patent cases there. Most of these businesses are in Plano, with a few in Beaumont. They too will have to stay put. It isn’t required that the place of business be related to the accused infringing activity.

The Many Other Defendants, And the Problem of Waiver

Those companies lacking a regular business location in the Eastern District will, for the most part, want to exit that district. Some may choose to stay there in order to effect a quick settlement or to show support for their beleaguered customers who have been sued in the district, but I estimate at least 800 will consider seeking a transfer. These break down into two roughly equal groups, those who have waived improper venue and those who have not. Waiver of this defense most typically occurs by failure to plead it in the answer or in an early motion under Rule 12. A sampling of pleadings in pending Eastern District patent cases reveals that in roughly 400 cases the main defendant did not plead improper venue or make a Rule 12 motion. (Note that this is a different subject from inconvenient venue, which is handled under a different statutory section and was sometimes pleaded in the answers.) It is understandable why the improper venue pleading was missing in so many cases: No one knew or even suspected until very recently that the venue rules had been changed by Congress in 2011, effective for all cases filed after January 2012. Good ethical lawyers know they shouldn’t plead a matter for which they have no legal or factual basis, and so they didn’t, and therein lies the waiver. Unfortunately, they cannot undo it by arguing “change in the law.” The change occurred in 2012.

The other group of defendants may have been insightful, but more likely were just following a form-book shotgun answer, and so they did plead improper venue in their answers. Answering this way is usually enough to preserve this defense, but not always. It has been held that taking discovery does not trigger a waiver, nor does proceeding to trial. It is thought that the corporate defendant who has pleaded the defense unsuccessfully has been forced to remain in the improper forum, so these litigation activities are not held against it. However, some courts have held that moving for summary judgment (unsuccessfully of course) is a different matter and does cause a waiver. You are not obliged to seek summary judgment, and you are invoking the court’s power. So some in the second group may find they too have waived.

For Those Exiting, Where Will They Be Sent?

This leaves about 400 non-waived cases. The case law on improper venue cases shows a distinct judicial preference for transfers rather than dismissals. To what districts will these non-waived defendants be transferred? Whatever districts are chosen, we should bear in mind that some of the NPE plaintiffs may not wish to follow, due to the expense involved, so those cases may effectively end. For more serious plaintiffs, we do not know where the cases will go. It depends on subjective factors applicable to each case, but here are some possible options: (1) Choose a district that one or both parties ask for. (2) Select a proper district that has a number of patent pilot judges, the three largest being Northern Illinois, Southern New York, and Central California. (3)  Use history as a guide: In 1997, one year before the large influx to Eastern Texas began, the busiest patent districts were Northern California (172 filings), Central California (162 filings), and Northern Illinois (116 filings). In that year the number of patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas was: 10. We shall soon see.

= = = = =

┼ Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center

[1] The case is set for argument March 27, with a decision very likely before the end of the Court’s term in June.

= = = = =
Read the Article: Janicke.2017.Venue

Prior Patently-O Patent L.J. Articles:

  • Mark A. Lemley, Erik Oliver, Kent Richardson, James Yoon, & Michael Costa, Patent Purchases and Litigation Outcomes, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 15 (Lemley.2016.PatentMarket)
  • Bernard Chao and Amy Mapes, An Early Look at Mayo’s Impact on Personalized Medicine, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 10 (Chao.2016.PersonalizedMedicine)
  • James E. Daily, An Empirical Analysis of Some Proponents and Opponents of Patent Reform, 2016 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (Daily.2016.Professors)
  • Tristan Gray–Le Coz and Charles Duan, Apply It to the USPTO: Review of the Implementation of Alice v. CLS Bank in Patent Examination, 2014 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1. (GrayLeCozDuan)
  • Robert L. Stoll, Maintaining Post-Grant Review Estoppel in the America Invents Act: A Call for Legislative Restraint, 2012 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (Stoll.2012.estoppel.pdf)
  • Paul Morgan, The Ambiguity in Section 102(a)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 29.  (Morgan.2011.AIAAmbiguities)
  • Joshua D. Sarnoff, Derivation and Prior Art Problems with the New Patent Act, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 12 (sarnoff.2011.derivation.pdf)
  • Bernard Chao, Not So Confidential: A Call for Restraint in Sealing Court Records, 2011 Patently-O Patent Patent Law Journal 6 (chao.sealedrecords.pdf)
  • Benjamin Levi and Rodney R. Sweetland, The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Recommendations to the International Trade Commission (ITC):  Unsound, Unmeasured, and Unauthoritative, 2011 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 1 (levi.ftcunsound.pdf)
  • Kevin Emerson Collins, An Initial Comment on King Pharmaceuticals: The Printed Matter Doctrine as a Structural Doctrine and Its Implications for Prometheus Laboratories, 2010 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 111 (Collins.KingPharma.pdf)
  • Robert A. Matthews, Jr., When Multiple Plaintiffs/Relators Sue for the Same Act of Patent False Marking, 2010 Patently-O Patent Law Journal 95 (matthews.falsemarking.pdf)
  • Kristen Osenga, The Patent Office’s Fast Track Will Not Take Us in the Right Direction, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 89 (Osenga.pdf)
  • Peter S. Menell,  The International Trade Commission’s Section 337 Authority, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 79
  • Donald S. Chisum, Written Description of the Invention: Ariad (2010) and the Overlooked Invention Priority Principle, 2010 Patently‐O Patent L.J. 72
  • Kevin Collins, An Initial Comment on Ariad: Written Description and the Baseline of Patent Protection for After-Arising Technology, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 24
  • Etan Chatlynne, Investigating Patent Law’s Presumption of Validity—An Empirical Analysis, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 37
  • Michael Kasdan and Joseph Casino, Federal Courts Closely Scrutinizing and Slashing Patent Damage Awards, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 24 (Kasdan.Casino.Damages)
  • Dennis Crouch, Broadening Federal Circuit Jurisprudence: Moving Beyond Federal Circuit Patent Cases, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 19 (2010)
  • Edward Reines and Nathan Greenblatt, Interlocutory Appeals of Claim Construction in the Patent Reform Act of 2009, Part II, 2010 Patently‐O Patent L.J. 7  (2010) (Reines.2010)
  • Gregory P. Landis & Loria B. Yeadon, Selecting the Next Nominee for the Federal Circuit: Patently Obvious to Consider Diversity, 2010 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1 (2010) (Nominee Diversity)
  • Paul Cole, Patentability of Computer Software As Such, 2008 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1. (Cole.pdf)
  • John F. Duffy, The Death of Google’s Patents, 2008 Patently O-Pat. L.J. ___ (googlepatents101.pdf)
  • Mark R. Patterson, Reestablishing the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 38
  • Arti K. Rai, The GSK Case: An Administrative Perspective, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 36
  • Joshua D. Sarnoff, BIO v. DC and the New Need to Eliminate Federal Patent Law Preemption of State and Local Price and Product Regulation, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 30 (Download Sarnoff.BIO.pdf)
  • John F. Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 21. (Duffy.BPAI.pdf)
  • Joseph Casino and Michael Kasdan, In re Seagate Technology: Willfulness and Waiver, a Summary and a Proposal, 2007 Patently-O Patent L.J. 1 (Casino-Seagate)

Prior Settlement Agreement Helps the Jury find Liability and Damages

Patent, ,

by Dennis Crouch

Prism Tech v. Sprint Spectrum (Fed. Cir. 2017) [prismtech]

The Nebraska jury found Sprint liable for infringing Prism’s patents and awarded $30 million in reasonable-royalty damages. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155. [verdict]prismverdict

AT&T was also sued under the patents but ended up settling the case for [REDACTED LARGE SUM OF MONEY].  On appeal, Sprint argued (unsuccessfully) that the settlement should not have been shown to the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

FRE 403 permits exclusion of “relevant evidence” when its “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

Prior settlement agreements are obviously probative since they help to establish value of the patented technology in the industry.   Traditionally, the settlement value is modeled as less than the value of the patent once its validity and infringement are established.  However, the mixture of risk aversion and litigation costs lead to some settlements that appear greater than the expected value of patent rights.

Here, the Federal Circuit found found “adequate basis for admitting the AT&T Settlement Agreement.” The agreement covered the same patents and – at trial – Prism’s expert explained differences between usage of AT&T and Sprint to help the jury use the prior agreement as comparable.

That Agreement covered the patents at issue here, though not only the patents at issue here. In that common situation, evidence was needed that reasonably addressed what bearing the amounts in that Agreement had on the value of the particular patents at issue here.

For me, the larger potential issue is that the jury is more likely to find the patent valid and infringed if it know that AT&T already paid a [REDACTED LARGE SUM OF MONEY] to settle the case.  This would suggest at least a bifurcated trial.  However, Sprint did not appear to make that argument on appeal.

= = = =

A very interesting argument raised by Sprint on appeal was based upon Rude v. Wescott, 130 U.S. 152 (1889).  In particular, Sprint argued that prior licenses can be used to prove an “established royalty” but not to prove a “reasonable royalty.”  Of course, a single license would not be sufficient to prove the established royalty. See also Cornely v. Marckwald, 131 U.S. 159 (1889).

 

The Court held in Rude that there was insufficient evidence to prove what has been called an “established royalty” as a measure of damages at law for patent infringement—i.e., “such a number of sales by a patentee of licenses to make, use and sell his patents, as to establish a regular price for a license.”  On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument as too-old: “The Court in Rude used both the language of patent damages law and the language of evidence law, and both have changed significantly since Rude.”  In addition, the court likely cut-short certiorari on the issue by finding that Sprint had failed to properly preserve the arguments for appeal.